IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

Peter Sylvester <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr> Thu, 12 February 2009 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A3728C0ED; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiPOefmYv7si; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ganymede.on-x.com (ganymede.on-x.com [194.51.68.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C383A6C0C; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from varuna.puteaux.on-x (varuna.puteaux.on-x [192.168.10.6]) by ganymede.on-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0483B6A; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:28:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtps.on-x.com (mintaka.puteaux.on-x [192.168.14.11]) by varuna.puteaux.on-x (Postfix) with ESMTP id B003F17118; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:28:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.15] (gut75-3-82-227-163-182.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.163.182]) by smtps.on-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784D077DC; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:28:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4994B09C.1080709@edelweb.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:28:28 +0100
From: Peter Sylvester <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07
References: <07d901c98d3e$0fdb9f70$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> <C5B9DD87.327A%mshore@cisco.com> <081b01c98d46$d8c731d0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
In-Reply-To: <081b01c98d46$d8c731d0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Melinda Shore' <mshore@cisco.com>, tls@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:28:25 -0000

>> and that there are 
>> some non-trivial advantages to carrying authorizations in-band.
>>     
> Namely... 
>
>   
Independance between payload and security measures.
Piggybagging information on lower layers is a very old concept.

https was successful over shttp.

I think the patent is made by trolls. There seems to be
lots of evidence of prior art. sending an OSCP
response as part of the TLS session setup
is a standard, where is the difference?

The current hacks to carry SAML assertion using additional
http connection is inefficient, mildly speaking. 

The authz has technical problems.
I encourage the TLS working group members to
seriously treat the issue.

Peter Sylvester

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status